CHATHAM-KENT PUC - YMCA of Owen Sound Grey Bruce

BRUCE GREY CHILD & FA MILY
SERVICES (BGCFS)
POVERTY REPORT
MAY 20, 2015
2
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Background.................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Data Sources and Limitations ...................................................................................... 2
1.3
Bruce Grey Child & Family Services ............................................................................ 3
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ................................................................. 4
2.1
Historical Population Trends ........................................................................................ 4
2.2.
Relative Age Distribution: ............................................................................................. 6
2.3
Family Structure: .......................................................................................................... 8
POVERTY IN BRUCE AND GREY COUNTY ..................................................................... 9
3.1
Families in Poverty....................................................................................................... 9
3.2
Lone Parent Families in Poverty .................................................................................10
3.3
Children in Poverty......................................................................................................12
3.4
First Nation Communities and Poverty: .......................................................................16
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN BRUCE AND GREY COUNTY ..............................17
4.1
Educational Attainment: ..............................................................................................17
4.2
Unemployment Rate: ..................................................................................................17
4.3
Self-Employed and Part-time Work: ............................................................................18
5.
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING .............................................................................................20
6.
NEEDS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................22
7.
6.1
Demographic Trends: .................................................................................................22
6.2
Population Projections (0 to 18 years):........................................................................24
6.3
Socio-economic Trends ..............................................................................................26
6.4
Service and Case Load Trends ...................................................................................27
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................31
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
In partnership with the community, Bruce Grey Child & Family Services (BGCFS) provides
support to help families keep children safe. The objective of this analysis is to provide BGCFS
with a comprehensive understanding of the population and demographic characteristics that
comprise their jurisdiction – with particular attention given to families and their children living in
poverty.
Of the 3.6 million families in Ontario, more than 477,000 are living in poverty (2011). Between
2006 and 2011 poverty prevalence rates in Ontario have remained relatively constant at around
13%. In Bruce and Grey counties, poverty prevalence rates have declined from 10% to 9%
between 2006 and 2011 – representing approximately 3,900 families. Child poverty has also
decreased in Bruce and Grey counties. In 2006 approximately 18% of children between the
ages 0 to 17 were living below the poverty line in Bruce and Grey counties. This decreased to
less than 17% by 2011. While the trend in child poverty is declining, approximately 4,800
children in Bruce and Grey counties are still living in poverty.
BGCFS serves a geographically and socio-economically diverse population that is largely rural
in setting. Subsequently, an in depth analysis of the socio-economic trends across the
jurisdiction as a whole and on a local/community based level will help to provide a more
comprehensive perspective of children and families living in poverty. In addition, surrounding
regions (such as the GTA) has been included in part to provide context into the trends occurring
not only in BGCFS’s jurisdiction but Ontario as a whole.
This report has 5 main components:



Population and Demographic Trends
Family and Child Poverty
Educational Attainment and Employment

Health and Well-being

Organizational Needs Analysis
The study utilizes current population information at varying geographic levels and can include
both regional and local level analysis. A variety of data sources have been utilized for this study
including data from Statistics Canada such as the 2006 and 2011 Census, the 2011 National
Household Survey, and the T1 Family File. The following section highlights some of the data
sources and limitations of this study.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
2
1.2
Data Sources and Limitations
For population data (i.e. age cohorts) the 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census’ were utilized. In 2011
however, it should be noted that in the National Household Survey replaced the mandatory
Long Form Census, which included statistics such as educational attainment, employment and
income. Subsequently, other data sources (i.e. T1 Family File, 2006 Census) were used instead
of the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) for some specific variables (i.e. poverty, income)
due to data quality concerns relating to the 2011 NHS. The main difference between the Long
Form Census and the NHS was that the latter was on a volunteer basis and therefore the
overall participation rate was much lower and less representative of the whole population than
previous surveys conducted. This is referred to as the global non-response rate (GNR) and is
used as an indicator of data quality. For Bruce County the GNR was approximately 34% and in
Grey County it was 37% for the 2011 NHS. This compares to the 2006 Census, when the GNR
was 5% to 10% for both Bruce and Grey counties.
In order to gain a more comprehensive representation of the current socio-economic trends in
Ontario, Bruce and Grey counties, this study analyzed the T1 Family File (T1FF) provided by
Statistics Canada. This data source was utilized in this report as it is considered the best and
most reliable statistic collected on an annual basis and on a local level. A Census Family is
similar to the traditional family concept and includes parents and children living in the same
dwelling. The T1FF dataset provides annual estimates for Census Families and Individuals and
is conducted for the development and dissemination of annual small area socio-economic data
for Canadians and their families. To maintain consistency with the Census, the T1FF datasets
for 2006 and 2011 were obtained for this study. It should be noted that the geography levels for
the T1FF dataset do not necessarily match those provided by the Census; especially for smaller
geographic areas such as municipalities and/or towns/cities.
The purpose of this study, the after-tax low income measure (LIM-AT) provided by the T1
Family File was used to determine the relative prevalence rates of poverty for families and
children. Statistics Canada described the (after-tax) LIMs as “a fixed percentage of adjusted
median family income where adjusted indicates a consideration of family needs. The family size
adjustment used in calculating the Low- Income Measures reflects the precept that family needs
increase with family size. A family is considered to be low income when their income is below
the Low-Income Measure (LIM) for their family type and size.”
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
3
1.3
Bruce Grey Child & Family Services
Bruce Grey Child & Family Services (BGCFS) was established in 2012 through the
consolidation of the former Bruce and Grey Children’s Aid Societies. Together, each
organization brought a history of more than a century of protecting children. Children’s Aid
Society operate under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) and report to the Ontario
Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS). BGCFS consists of a team of over 150 child
protection workers, child and youth workers, lawyers, support and administrative staff working
together and in partnership with the community to help families to keep children safe and well.
Bruce Grey Child and Family Services currently operate out of 3 main facilities, with those
offices located in Owen Sound, Walkerton and Wiarton. It has a jurisdiction of approximately
8,000 square kilometres and serves a child population of more than 30,000. While demographic
trends are geographically varied, on a jurisdiction-wide basis the total population has increased
over the last decade. Between 2001 and 2006 the total population grew by 3.1%; however the
majority of this increase occurred in the adult population, aged 18 years of age or older (6.4%);
while the child population (under 18 years of age) decreased by 7% for that same period of
time. In comparison, the Ontario child population experienced a slight increase between 2001
and 2006 of approximately 1%. The female population aged 25-44 (primary child bearing years)
also decreased by almost 9% jurisdiction-wide compared to a 1.3% drop provincially; which may
have affected the number of births within the area. Between 2006 and 2011 the jurisdiction
experienced a smaller increase in total population by just less than 1%. Similar to the first half of
the decade, this growth was isolated in the adult population (3.1%) whereas the child population
declined again by more than 8%. In Ontario, the child population decreased by less than 1%
overall. In Bruce and Grey, females aged 25 to 44 continued to decline by approximately 7%
compared to a provincial drop of 1.4% for that same period of time.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
4
2.
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
2.1
Historical Population Trends
Due to the large geographic area that the BGCFS currently serves, the population trends are
spatially varied. In terms of total population, both Bruce (Table 2.1) and Grey (Table 2.2) have
experienced growth in the last decade; increasing 2.3% and 3.7% respectively between 2001
and 2006; followed by an additional increase of 1.1% (Bruce) and 0.2% (Grey) between 2006
and 2011. The majority of this growth was within the adult population (over 18 years of age)
compared to the child population (less than 18 years of age). For Bruce the adult population
increased by 6.3% between 2001 and 2006. This is on par with the 6.5% increase in adult
population for Grey during that same period of time. Similar trends were found between 2006
and 2011; where Bruce experienced an increase in its adult population by an additional 3.3%
and Grey by 2.9%. While similar trends where found in both counties for the adult population,
variance is present in the historical child population trends. Between 2001 and 2006 Bruce
decreased its child population by 10% or more than 1,500 children. Grey also experienced a
decline during this time, however the child population dropped by less than 5% or 1,030
children. Between 2006 and 2011, the decline in the child population was less prominent in
Bruce (6.7%) than Grey (9.3%). Both areas experienced a decline in females aged 25-44
between 2001 and 2006 by 9% and 8.1% respectively. However in the latter part of the decade
Bruce experienced less of decline in the population (2.6%) when compared to the 10.3% drop in
females aged 25-44 living in.
Table 2.1 Bruce County Historical Population Trends
Geography
Total Population
2001
2006
2011
2001-2006
Census
Census
Census
Absolute
%
2006 - 2011
Absolute
%
63,910
65,350
66,075
1,440
2.3%
725
1.1%
Under 18 Years
Over 18 Years
15,890
48,020
14,300
51,050
13,340
52,735
-1,590
3,030
-10.0%
6.3%
-960
1,685
-6.7%
3.3%
Females Aged 25-44
7,485
6,815
6,640
-670
-9.0%
-175
-2.6%
Table 2.2 Grey County Historical Population Trends
2001
2006
2011
Census
Census
Census
Absolute
89,070
92,410
92,570
Under 18 Years
Over 18 Years
21,615
67,455
20,585
71,825
Females Aged 25-44
11,135
10,230
Geography
Total Population
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2001-2006
2006 - 2011
%
Absolute
%
3,340
3.7%
160
0.2%
18,670
73,900
-1,030
4,370
-4.8%
6.5%
-1,915
2,075
-9.3%
2.9%
9,175
-905
-8.1%
-1,055
-10.3%
Poverty Report
5
The decreasing child population and increasing adult population is a trend that exists on a
county basis as well as for each individual municipality within the Bruce and Grey. While each
municipality is experiencing some decline in their child population, the severity of this decline
changes geographically (Table 2.3). In addition, different age cohorts within the child population
have varying trends. Some of the areas that have experienced a sharp decline in child
populations overall such as Saugeen Shores, Kincardine, Arran-Elderslie, Huron-Kinloss and
Grey Highlands, have also experienced significant increases within the 0-3 population over the
last decade – increasing as high as 40%. These areas generally coincide with areas of
residential growth and could be an indication of imminent child population growth areas as well.
Table 2.3 Child vs. Adult Population Changes between 2001 and 2011
Bruce County
2001-2011
Grey County
2001 - 2011
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
South Bruce
Huron-Kinloss
Kincardine
Brockton
Arran-Elderslie
-24%
-7%
-20%
-20%
-9%
2%
14%
8%
4%
8%
West Grey
Southgate
Grey Highlands
Hanover
Chatsworth
-9%
-13%
-8%
-2%
-13%
9%
11%
7%
13%
9%
Saugeen Shores
SBP
Saugeen 29
NBP
-14%
-14%
-2%
-24%
19%
8%
8%
10%
Blue Mountains
Meaford
Georgian Bluffs
Owen Sound
-20%
-14%
-18%
-18%
11%
13%
10%
7%
In Bruce, the areas with the highest number of children are presently residing in Kincardine,
Saugeen Shores and Brockton with more than 2,000 children each (2011 Census), followed by
South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss, Arran-Elderslie and South Bruce Peninsula with more than 1,000
children each (Figure 2a). Northern Bruce Peninsula and the two Reserves (Saugeen 29 and
Neyaashiinigmiing 27) each have less than 1,000 children currently residing within their
boundaries. Comparatively, in Grey the highest number of children are currently found in Owen
Sound (4,000). West Grey, Southgate, Grey Highlands, Meaford and Georgian Bluffs all have
somewhere between 1,900-2,500 children living in their communities; while Hanover and
Chatsworth have approximately 1,500 children in 2011. Blue Mountains has the lowest
population of children at less than 1,000.
The ratio of the child population compared to the total population of each municipality was also
analyzed (Figure 2b). For Grey, Southgate and Chatsworth have the highest representation at
26% and 23% respectively. West Grey, Grey Highlands and Hanover have anywhere from 2022% of their population under the age of 18; while the remaining municipalities fall below 20%;
with Blue Mountains’ child population representing less than 15% of their total population. In
Bruce, while Saugeen 29 has one of the lowest child populations in terms of absolute numbers,
it has the highest proportion when compared to the total population at 33%. Huron-Kinloss,
Kincardine, Brockton and Arran-Elderslie have child populations representing approximately 20-
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
6
30% of their total population; while Northern Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula, Saugeen
Shores and Neyaashiinigmiing 27 are all less than 20%. It should be noted that
Neyaashiinigmiing 27 numbers are based on 2006 Census information as 2011 data was not
available for this area.
Figure 2a
Total Child Population (By Municipality)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
Figure 2b
Ratio of Child Population to Total Population (By Municipality)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2.2. Relative Age Distribution:
The following graphs depict the age cohort distribution for Bruce (Figure 2c) and Grey (Figure
2d) counties based on the 2011 Census data. The data is represented as a percentage of the
total male and female populations respectively. For both Bruce and Grey, the largest proportion
of the population are approximately 40 to 64 years of age – representing 38% of the total
population for both counties. Comparatively in Ontario, approximately 36% of the total
population is aged 40 to 64 years of age.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
7
Figure2c: Age Pyramid Bruce County (2011 Census)
Figure 2d: Age Pyramid Grey County (2011 Census)
0 to 4
0 to 4
10 to 14
10 to 14
20 to 24
20 to 24
30 to 34
30 to 34
40 to 44
40 to 44
50 to 54
50 to 54
60 to 64
60 to 64
70 to 74
70 to 74
80 to 84
80 to 84
90 to 94
90 to 94
100 +
0.15
0.10
0.05
100 +
0.00
Male
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.10
Female
0.05
0.00
Male
0.05
0.10
0.15
Female
While the largest proportion of the population is approximately 40 to 64 years of age for Ontario, Bruce and Grey; the percentage of
seniors (population over the age of 65 years) varies between the three geographies. In Ontario, almost 15% of the population is over
the age of 65; while in Bruce and Grey approximately 20-21% of the population is over the age of 65 – an increase of more than 5%
when compared to the province. In terms of median age of the population, the data indicates that the median age of the male
population in Ontario is approximately 39.4 and 41.3 for the female population. In Bruce, the median age of the male population is
46.3 and 47.6 for the female population. Finally, in Grey the median age of the male population is 46.3 and 48.2 for the female
population. Subsequently, the BGCFS jurisdiction has a median age that is 18% higher than the provincial median for the male
population and between 15-17% higher for the female population. On a regional level, Bruce and Grey tend to have a higher median
age than surrounding counties such as Simcoe (41.8), Dufferin (40), Wellington (39.5), Perth (41.2) and Huron (45.1). On a local
level, Northern Bruce Peninsula, The Blue Mountains, South Bruce Peninsula and Meaford have the highest median age - ranging
between 50.4 and 57.3. Comparatively, Huron-Kinloss, South Bruce, Southgate, Arran-Elderslie, and Saugeen 29 have the lowest
median age – ranging from 32.4 to 44.9.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
8
2.3
Family Structure:
As the population ages, the structure of families within Ontario, specifically Bruce and Grey, has
shifted as well. In Ontario, 45% of the population is comprised of 2 person households, which is
approximately 10% less than Bruce and Grey at 55%. Smaller household size in rural areas of
the province generally coincide with an aging population. In 2011, the senior population (aged
65 and older) in Ontario was approximately 15% of the total population. This has increased
since 2006 when 14% of the population was over the age of 65. Comparatively Bruce and Grey
had a higher proportion of seniors at 20% and 21% respectively; an increase of approximately
2% for each county since 2006 when seniors were approximately 18% of the total population in
Bruce and 19% in Grey.
The majority (54%) of married and/or common-law couples currently residing in BGCFS’s
jurisdiction do not have children; which compares with 42% of married and/or common-law
couples in Ontario with no children. This higher prevalence of couples without children in Bruce
and Grey could potentially relate to the relatively senior populations present in the jurisdiction.
According to the 2006 Census, the percentage of lone-parent families continues to rise; the
majority of which are female lone-parent families. In Ontario, 16% of census families were
considered lone parent families, the majority of which were female lone parent families. Bruce
and Grey counties have a lower prevalence of lone parent families at 10% and 12% of the total
census families respectively. Similar to provincial trends, the majority were female lone parent
families at approximately 80% compared to 20% that were male lone parent families.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
9
3.
POVERTY IN BRUCE AND GREY COUNTY
3.1
Families in Poverty
In 2006, more than 13% of the Ontario’s families were considered low income (or living in
poverty) as outlined by the after-tax low income measure from the T1 Family File. This
compares to Bruce and Grey that had approximately 9.3% and 10.2% of families considered low
income or living in poverty. In 2011, Ontario’s prevalence of families living in poverty has
remained relatively constant at around 13% - while Bruce and Grey experienced a decrease in
the prevalence of low income families of approximately 1% each – resulting in 8% of Bruce
families and 9% of Grey families currently living in poverty.
In Bruce and Grey the proportion of lone parent, low income families is on the rise. In 2006,
59% of low income families had two parents (couples), compared to 41% that were lone parent
families for both counties. In 2011 however, 54% and 53% of low income families were couple
families compared to 46% and 47% that were lone parent families for Bruce and Grey
respectively. This represents an increase of around 5% to 6% in lone parent families living in
poverty for both counties between 2006 and 2011. Comparatively, in Ontario, the prevalence of
lone parent families living in poverty has also increased relative to low income couple families –
but on a much smaller scale than Bruce and Grey. In 2006, 62% of low income families were
couples (or two parent families) versus the 38% that were lone parent families. This compares
to 2011, when 63% of the low income families were couples versus 37% that were considered
lone parent families – which represents a 1% increase in lone parent families living in poverty in
Ontario between 2006 and 2011.
Table 3.1: Families Living in Poverty
Geography
2006 (Families)
Total
LIM-AT
%
2011 (Families)
Total
LIM-AT
%
2006 - 2011
Total %
LIM-AT %
BGCFS Jurisdiction
45,280
4,430
9.8%
45,410
3,970
8.7%
0%
-10%
Bruce County
Grey County
19,810
25,470
1,840
2,590
9.3%
10.2%
19,480
25,930
1,510
2,460
7.8%
9.5%
-2%
2%
-18%
-5%
3,491,390
462,920
13.3%
3,656,830
477,360
13.1%
5%
3%
Ontario
The median income for two parent (couple) families in Bruce and Grey is $73,220 and $63,360
respectively – which compares to provincial couple families as a whole that have a median
income of approximately $70,800. Comparatively, lone parent families in Bruce have a median
family income of $37,580; which is higher than the provincial median income for lone parent
families which is approximately $36,920. While Grey has a lower median income for lone
parents than both Bruce and the Province of Ontario, at approximately $33,810.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
10
For families considered low income - less discrepancy between two parent and one parent
families exists in terms of median family income. In Bruce, low income couple families have a
median income of approximately $19,230 versus low income, lone parent families that have a
median income of $16,770. In Grey, the low income couple families have a median income of
approximately $20,020 versus low income, lone parent families that have a median income of
$17,900. While, the gap in median income is reduced between low income couple families and
low income lone parent families for both counties – it is relatively higher than the provincial gap
between two parent and one parent families living in poverty.
In Bruce and Grey, lone parent families living in poverty have a median income that is 12.8%
and 10.6% lower than low income families with two parents. While in Ontario, lone parent
families living in poverty, have a median income that is 4.1% lower than families with two
parents. Evidentially, the prevalence of lone parent families living in poverty is not only on the
rise in Bruce and Grey - the gap in median income for lone parent families compared to couple
families is relatively high compared to provincial trends.
3.2
Lone Parent Families in Poverty
While the prevalence of low income lone parent families continues to rise in Bruce and Grey, the
severity of this increase varies geographically. Figure 3a depicts the percentage of lone parent
families living below LIM-AT by communities located in Bruce and Grey. It should be noted that
some data for Tobermory (2006 and 2011), Paisley (2011) and Chatsworth (2011) was
suppressed for these years and therefore could not be included in the analysis.
Figure 3a:
% of Lone Parent Families Living Below LIM-AT (2011) by Area/Community
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2006 LILP
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2011 LILP
Poverty Report
11
In terms of percentage change between 2006 and 2011, Port Elgin experienced the largest
increase in lone parent families living in poverty – increasing 9% in 5 years. This was followed
by Owen Sound, Hanover, Dundalk and Walkerton which all experienced an increase of 1% to
3% in low income, lone parent families for the same period of time. The remaining municipalities
either remained stable or decreased their prevalence of lone parent families living below the
poverty line. The largest declines occurred in Mildmay, Hepworth, Lucknow and Lion’s Head
which all experienced a decrease in lone parent families living below the LIM-AT of 7% to 9%
between 2006 and 2011.
In addition to changes in poverty prevalence rates between 2006 and 2011, the proportion of
(low income) lone parent families that each community represents as a whole was analyzed.
Figure 3b highlights the top ten communities in Bruce and Grey counties that have the highest
number of lone parent families living below the LIM-AT. While Port Elgin, had the highest
increase in prevalence rates of lone parent families living in poverty; it represents only 7% of the
total for Bruce and Grey communities. Comparatively, Owen Sound has the highest proportion
of low income, lone parent families at more than 31% of the total. In addition, for some
communities that did not necessarily increase or decrease their prevalence of low income lone
parent families – they still represent a large portion of the total number of families living below
the LIM-AT such as Wiarton and Meaford at 9% and 7% respectively.
Figure 3b:
% of Lone Parent Families Living Below LIM-AT (2011)
Top 10 Areas/Communities
DUNDALK, 4%
KINCARDINE, 5%
SOUTHAMPTON, 5%
DURHAM, 5%
OWEN SOUND, 31%
WALKERTON, 6%
PORT ELGIN, 7%
HANOVER, 9%
MEAFORD,
7%
WIARTON, 9%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
12
3.3
Children in Poverty
One of the most significant indicators of poverty prevalence is the number of children currently
living in poverty. Studies have shown that children who grow up in poverty are less likely to
achieve educational and employment goals; and are potentially subject to increased health risks
presently, and in the future. Figure 3c depicts the % of children living below the LIM-AT (2011).
Of the children under the age 17 years that currently live in either Bruce or Grey, 4,770 or
16.6% are living in poverty. This has decreased since 2006 when 5,700 children were living in
poverty; which represented 17.8% of the total child population in the area. While the child
population has decreased by approximately 10% since 2006, the number of children living in
poverty has dropped by approximately 16%. Subsequently, this decline in children living in
poverty in not solely a result of the declining child population overall for this region.
This decline in child poverty is more predominant in Bruce than Grey - declining the number of
children living in poverty by 23% since 2006. Proportional to the total child population, Bruce
has decreased its prevalence of child poverty from 17.2% of the population age 0 to 17 living
below LIM-AT in 2006 to less than 15% in 2011. Grey has declined its number of children living
in poverty by 11%. Compared to the total child population, Grey has decreased its prevalence of
child poverty from 18.3% to 17.9% between 2006 and 2011. In addition to having a higher
prevalence of children living below the poverty line, Grey also has more absolute numbers of
children living in poverty compared to Bruce. In 2011, Grey had more than 3,000 children living
in poverty versus Bruce that had less than 1,800 – a difference of more than 70% between the
two counties. However, both Grey and Bruce have lower prevalence rates overall when
compared to Ontario as whole which had a prevalence of 20% and 19.4% of child poverty in
2006 and 2011 respectively.
Figure 3c:
% of Children Age 0-17 Living Below the LIM-AT
(Bruce & Grey Counties vs. Ontario)
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Bruce County
Grey County
2006
Ontario
2011
Bruce and Grey counties are also lower than the GTAH as a whole, which averages 20.7%
children living below the LIM-AT in 2011 – ranging from 10.1% in Halton to 28.2% in Toronto.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
13
Compared to the regions surrounding the counties, Bruce and Grey are slightly higher in their
child poverty prevalence rates. Figure 3d depicts the percentage of children age 0 to 17 living
below the LIM-AT for Dufferin, Huron, Perth, Simcoe and Wellington for both 2006 and 2011.
The average for Grey and Bruce is higher than the average for the surrounding counties for both
2006 and 2011 by approximately 2% to 3% overall.
Figure 3d
% of Children Age 0-17 Living Below the LIM-AT
(Select Counties Surrounding Jurisdiction)
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Dufferin County
Huron County
Perth County
2006
Simcoe County
Wellington County
2011
While overall the number of children living in poverty has decreased for Grey and Bruce,
prevalence rates vary geographically. Figure 3e highlights the percentage of children in poverty
for various communities throughout the jurisdiction. While the majority of communities
experienced a decline in child poverty, there were some places that increased their prevalence
between 2006 and 2011 such as Dundalk, Wiarton, Southampton, Teeswater and Owen Sound.
However, this increase was relatively small and ranged anywhere from 0.4% to 0.6% between
2006 and 2011. Of the remaining areas that experienced a decline in child poverty prevalence
rates, Paisley, Hepworth, Markdale, Tobermory and Chesley had the largest declines between
2006 and 2011 that ranged anywhere from 4.2% to 8.1%.
In addition, it should be noted that the majority of these communities decreased the number of
children living in poverty in terms of absolute numbers for this same period of time. As stated
previously, this may in part be related to the overall declining number of children present in
these communities as a whole. However, for many of these communities the change in the child
population between 2006 and 2011 was not necessarily equal to the change in the child poverty
rate for the same period of time. This indicates that the declining poverty prevalence rates for
children is not solely due to the demographic changes in the region. For example, in Port Elgin,
while the child population increased by 2% between 2006 and 2011, the prevalence of children
living in poverty decreased by more than 5%.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
14
Figure 3e
% of Children Age 0-17 Living Below the LIM-AT by Area/Community
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2006
2011
In addition, to prevalence rates between 2006 and 2011, the proportion of child poverty that
each community represents as a whole was analyzed. Figure 3f highlights the top ten
communities in Bruce and Grey that have the highest proportion of child poverty compared to
the region as a whole. Currently, Owen Sound has the highest proportion of children living in
poverty at more than 27% of the total number of children below the LIM-AT. This is followed by
Wiarton and Hanover – with Port Elgin, Southampton, Kincardine and Walkerton currently
having the lowest number of children living in poverty compared to Bruce and Grey as a whole.
Figures 3g and 3h depict % of children living in poverty proportional to each community total; as
well as the jurisdiction total respectively.
Figure 3f:
% of Children Age 0-17 Living Below LIM-AT (2011)
Top 10 Areas/Communities
WALKERTON, 5%
KINCARDINE, 5%
SOUTHAMPTON, 5%
OWEN SOUND, 27%
PORT ELGIN, 5%
DUNDALK, 6%
DURHAM, 6%
WIARTON, 8%
MEAFORD, 6%
HANOVER, 8%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
15
Figure 3g:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Figure 3h:
Poverty Report
16
3.4
First Nation Communities and Poverty:
There are two First Nation reserves within Bruce Grey Child & Family Services jurisdiction
including Neyaashiinigmiing 27 and Saugeen 29 which are both located in the Northwest portion
of Bruce County. While the total population of both of these communities is less than 1,500 - the
proportion of the child population is approximately 30% or one third of their total population. This
is on par with many of Ontario’s First Nation Reserves which on average has a child population
representing 30 - 40% of their total population. Outside of the geographical boundaries of each
reserve, there is an urban First Nation’s presence in some of the surrounding municipalities
including Owen Sound and Saugeen Shores in which 3% of their population identifies as
aboriginal; as well as Northern Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula and Southgate, which
each have approximately 2% of their population identifying as Aboriginal. Overall, the First
Nation’s population (2.9%) has increased since 2001 when it represented approximately 1.9%
of the total population within Bruce and Grey.
Studies have shown that 40% of indigenous children in Canada are living in poverty and are 2
and half times more likely to live in poverty compared to non-indigenous children. This
compares to the child poverty rate for all children in Canada which is approximately 17% (2006
Census) – a difference of more than 23%. Comparatively, 34% of the Ontario’s indigenous
children are living in poverty compared to 15% of non-indigenous children.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
17
4. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN BRUCE AND GREY
COUNTY
In addition to relative trends in poverty, this report also examined the educational attainment
and employment characteristics of Bruce and Grey. Unemployment and/or low employment
(i.e. self-employed without employees, part-time, etc.) can increase the level of stress on
households and the ability for families to thrive. The prevalence of poverty and/or low income
households combined with uncertain employment opportunities can create challenges in
maintaining the well-being of families and their children. For some families, limited access to
higher education and subsequent employment opportunities can perpetuate poverty over
generations. In addition, unstable employment and low income circumstances can impede a
family’s ability to provide appropriate childcare. The following section highlights some of the
educational and employment trends occurring in Bruce and Grey.
4.1
Educational Attainment:
Table 4.1 depicts the educational attainment for Bruce and Grey. In Ontario, 14% of the
population never obtained a diploma or degree. Of the population that did receive a diploma or
degree, 25% obtained a high school diploma, 31% obtained a trades/college diploma and 31%
completed a university level degree. For Bruce, 18% of the population never obtained a diploma
or degree, 26% received a high school diploma, 39% received a trades/college diploma and
16% received a university level degree. The high prevalence of trades/college diplomas could
relate to the economy of the area which is heavily weighted in agricultural and manufacturing
opportunities. For Grey, 19% of the population never obtained a diploma or degree, 29%
received a high school diploma, 35% received a trades/college diploma and 16% received a
university level degree. Overall, the population that the organization services within the counties
tend to have a lower level of educational attainment when compared to the province of Ontario.
Table 4.1 Education Attainment
Geography
No Diploma/Degree
Ontario
Bruce County
Grey County
4.2
14%
18%
19%
High school Diploma
25%
26%
29%
Trades/Colleges
31%
39%
35%
University Degree
31%
16%
16%
Unemployment Rate:
Figure 4a depicts the unemployment rate (for the population over 25 year of age) for Bruce and
Grey at the municipal and county level. According to the 2006 Census, both Bruce and Grey
have a lower unemployment rate at approximately 3.6% to 3.7% than the province that has an
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
18
unemployment rate of approximately 5%. Unemployment trends do vary geographically with
South Bruce and Huron-Kinloss having the lowest unemployment rate for the jurisdiction at
1.2% and 1.9% respectively. Kincardine, Brockton, West Grey, Hanover, Blue Mountains and
Georgian Bluffs all have an unemployment rates between 2-3%; while the remaining
municipalities have a rate above 4%. Northern Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula and
Owen Sound have some of the highest unemployment rates within the jurisdiction (between 5%7%). Currently, the two First Nation reserves within the jurisdiction have the highest levels of
unemployment at close to 20%.
Figure 4a:
Unemployment Rate by Municipality
Ontario
Municipal
Bruce/Grey
10.0%
1.0%
4.3
Self-Employed and Part-time Work:
Self-employment is on the rise in Canada. Between 1989 and 2006, the percentage of
Canadians categorized as “self-employed without employees” increased by almost 45%. In
Ontario, self-employment (without paid employees) is also on the rise – increasing at similar
rates to Canada as a whole, with more than 700,000 employees categorized as self-employed
in 2006.
In Ontario, the number of people considered ‘self-employed without paid employees’ has
increased by approximately 5% - which compares with Bruce that experienced a decrease of
3% for this same period of time. For Grey, the percentage of people in this category is
increasing more rapidly than the provincial trends – increasing 7% between 2001 and 2006. In
2006, Bruce had approximately 3,600 people considered self-employed without employees;
while Grey had approximately 5,700. In the 2011 National Household Survey, this statistic did
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
19
not decipher between self-employed without employees or with employees, but instead just
collected data on the number of ‘self-employed’ persons throughout Canada. In Bruce and
Grey, 15% to 17% of the population was considered self-employed in 2011. This compares to
Canada and Ontario populations overall which averaged closer to 11% self-employed.
Figure 4b
Bruce County and Grey County
Self-Employed - Without Paid Employees (2001 - 2006)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2001
2006
Figure 4b depicts the municipal trends of population considered self-employed without paid
employees between 2001 and 2006. Of the 17 municipalities displayed (data was not available
for either reserve); 6 have experienced a decline in population considered self-employed; while
the remaining 11 (65%) experienced an increase. In particular, Blue Mountains and Owen
Sound both increased their number of self-employed people by more than 40% - with Blue
Mountains reaching closer to 50% increased between 2001 and 2006. Grey Highlands
experienced an increase of 27% while South Bruce decreased by approximately 26%. In 2011,
some of the highest rates of self-employment were found in the Northern Bruce Peninsula,
Southgate, Chatsworth, Grey Highlands, West Grey and The Blue Mountains - ranging
anywhere from 22 to 26% of the population considered self-employed.
Part-time employment was also analyzed for this study. In Ontario, approximately one fifth
(20%) of the total population worked part-time in 2010. When the male and female populations
were analyzed separately, it was found that only 13% of the male population worked part-time
compared to 27% of the female population. This trend of higher female populations working
part-time was more pronounced in Bruce and Grey that had approximately 32% and 34% of
their female populations working part-time in 2010 respectively. Overall, both Bruce and Grey
total populations had a higher prevalence of part-time work compared to the province at 22%
and 25% respectively.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
20
5.
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
The prevalence of poverty can hinder the ability for families and their children to access the
resources and services needed for healthy physical and mental development. Conversely,
families and their children living in poverty are subject to greater risk for poor physical and
mental health. For the purpose of this study, data was derived from the Canadian Community
Health Survey at the health region level; which for this jurisdiction was the Grey Bruce Health
Unit. Prevalence of physical or mental health conditions as well as substance use disorders
were examined in relation to provincial and national trends.
In terms of perceived health, the data indicates that 58.7% of respondents had very good or
excellent perceived physical health and 70.7% had very good or excellent mental health. This is
slightly less than the provincial average for Ontario in which 60.4% of respondents had very
good or excellent perceived physical health and 72.4% had very good or excellent mental
health. According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, Canadians in the lowest income
group are 3 to 4 times more likely than those in the highest income group to report poor to fair
mental health. In Bruce and Grey, approximately 10% of respondents reported having a mood
disorder (i.e. depression, bipolar disorder, etc.); which is 2% higher than Ontario and 3% higher
than Canada as a whole. Approximately 22% of Canadians have had a substance use disorder
during their lifetime – the most common substance being alcohol consumption. More than 26%
of respondents from Bruce or Grey were identified as consuming high amounts of alcohol which
is 9% higher than the provincial (Ontario’s) average of 17% of respondents and 8% higher than
the national average of 16%.
For perceived life stress however, Bruce and Grey had a decreased prevalence compared to
Ontario. This variable measures population over the age of 15 years who reported that most
days in their life were quite a bit or extremely stressful. In Bruce and Grey, 19% of the total
population had increased levels of perceived stress; which was 4% less than the provincial and
national average of 23%.
Figure 5a highlights the dependency ratio for Bruce and Grey as well as surrounding Health
Units located in southern Ontario. The dependency ratio is the combined population aged
between 0 to 19 years old and the population aged of 65 years and over to the population aged
between 20 to 64 years old. This ratio is generally presented as the number of dependents for
every 100 people in the working age population. Increased dependency ratios are thought to put
additional stress on families and can subsequently exacerbate the prevalence of families living
in poverty. In Bruce and Grey, there are approximately 70 dependants to every 100 people of
approximate working age. This compares with Ontario as a whole which has approximately 58
dependants per 100 working people – which is approximately 17% less than Bruce and Grey.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
21
For surrounding counties, Bruce and Grey has a comparatively high dependency ratio, second
only to Huron, which has 73 dependents per 100.
Figure 5a
Dependency Ratio by 2013 Health Units
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
22
6.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the current and potential needs of the organization. It is
necessary to examine the needs and resources to properly analyze if the organization is well
positioned to meet those needs and accommodate any necessary resources. The needs
analysis for the purposes of this report focused on 4 main areas;
 Demographic trends and clusters of the 0-18 population;
 Projected child populations;
 Socio-economic trends;
 Service trends/Caseload.
6.1
Demographic Trends:
Child populations (0-18) in the jurisdiction, like in many parts of Ontario, have been declining
significantly over the past decade or so. The 0-18 population dropped by 7% between 2001 and
2006 and a further 8.2% between 2006 and 2011. This represents a decline of just below 5,500
0-18 year olds over a 10 year period. The jurisdiction’s population is ageing and any population
increases over the past decade have been largely attributable to adult populations. While the 03 year old population has had continued declines through the late 90’s to the early 2000’s, the
most recent census data for 2011 shows an increase of almost 600 0-3 year olds. This is
important because the 0-3 year old population is a good demographic indicator of what the 4-18
year old populations can be expected to do. While the increases in the 0-3 population indicate
that the most severe declines in the 0-18 population are likely over, it must be remembered that
the 0-18 population declined by almost 5,500 people and the increases in the 0-3 population
were only about 300.
Every municipality in the jurisdiction experienced child population declines between 2001 and
2011 of between -2% and -24%. When examining trends on a service area basis between
Wiarton, Walkerton and Owen Sound, each has experienced somewhat similar declines in the
0-18 population over the last decade. Wiarton had the greatest decline with the 0-18 population
declining by almost 16% between 2001 and 2011, followed by Owen Sound at just over 15%
and Walkerton at almost 14%. In terms of the absolute numbers of 0-18 year olds, in 2011 the
jurisdiction had a total of 31,855 with the Walkerton area having 53%, Owen Sound at 32% and
Wiarton at 15%. A map on the following page depicts the highest concentrations (statistically
significant) of the 0-18 year old population across the jurisdiction.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
23
Figure 6a: Statistically Significant Clusters of Absolute Child Population
The jurisdiction includes two First Nations Reserves and also has a non-reserve First Nations
population. According to Statistics Canada data, the percentage of the population that identifies
as Aborginal was 2.9% compared with 1.9% in 2001 – this was an increase of almost 58%.
While data was not available for the Neyaashiinigmiing 27 reserve for 2001 and 2011, it was
available for the Saugeen 29 reserve. Total population on the Saugeen 29 reserve also
increased between 2001 and 2011 but by only 4%. While the reserve data is incomplete, it
would suggest that the growth in the First Nations population is potentially occurring in the nonreserve population.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
24
6.2
Population Projections (0 to 18 years):
The demographic trends provide perspective on the historical populations that the organization
serves and also are good indicators of future population trends. It is important to know what the
service population looked like historically and what it looks like today; but it is also vital for the
organization to understand what the future service population will be. The consultant prepared
a 0-18 year old population forecast for the jurisdiction by service sector for the next 10 years
(Table 6.1). The forecast takes into account historical demographic trends, migration
assumptions, residential development forecasts and child yields and family structures. The
forecast trends are similar to work the consultant has undertaken for the two English language
school boards which share the same geography with BGCFS. Overall, the consultant
projections predict that the 0-18 service population will continue to decline over the next 10
years, by about 3% or 946 people. The population is expected to continue declining in the short
term, before stabilizing and increasing slightly in the longer term. The 0-18 population in the
Wiarton service area is expected to increase by 1.0% which in absolute terms reflects a slight
increase of 20 people. The Walkerton area is expected to decline by 3% or approximately 487
people while the Owen Sound area is expected to decline by 4.1%.
Table
6.1Population
Population
Projections (0-18)
Table 20
Projections
HISTORICAL
Projected 0-18 Year Old
Population, 2014-2023
2011
Wiarton Service Area
2012
2013
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
2014
2018
2023
2013-2023 % Change
2,293
2,239
2,131
2,136
2,131
2,152
20
1.0%
Owen Sound Service Area
12,472
12,158
11,836
11,647
11,253
11,356
-
480
-4.1%
Walkerton Service Area
17,113
16,704
16,174
15,799
15,475
15,687
-
487
-3.0%
Total
31,878
31,102
30,141
29,582
28,859
29,195
-
946
-3.1%
Much of the decline in the 0-18 populations expressed above is due to the expected declines in
the 14-18 year old population. Historical declines in the 0-14 population have recently impacted
the 14-18 year old populations as the cohorts have aged. To account for this, the consultant
also examined the 0-14 year old population (Table 6.2) which is more indicative of where the
majority of the organization’s resources go and also more closely approximates one of the
current funding model triggers. The 0-14 year old population is projected to increase by 1.1% or
234 people. The Walkerton service area is projected to increase by 2.4% or 268 people while
the Wiarton area is expected to also increase slightly by 29 people and Owen Sound is
expected to decrease by just below 1%.
Table
6.2Population
Population
Projections (0-14)
Table 21
Projections
HISTORICAL
Projected 0-14 Year Old
Population, 2014-2023
2011
Wiarton Service Area
1,605
Owen Sound Service Area
2012
1,590
2013
1,597
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
2014
2018
2023
1,596
1,644
2013-2023 % Change
1,626
1.8%
9,254
9,002
8,929
8,859
8,860
8,866
63
-0.7%
Walkerton Service Area
11,107
11,085
10,992
10,959
10,998
11,260
268
2.4%
Total
21,966
21,677
21,519
21,415
21,501
21,753
234
1.1%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
-
29
Poverty Report
25
The consultant-prepared projections are significantly more conservative than other population
forecasts the consultant reviewed for the area. The Ministry of Finance prepares projections by
Region/County for the Province of Ontario. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) projections predict
that the 0-18 population in Bruce and Grey will increase over the next 10 years by more than
2,300 people or approximately 7% (Table 6.3). The Ministry of Finance projections were
prepared in the spring of 2012 and were based on the 2006 Census.
Table 6.3 MOF Projections
MOF Population Projections
2011
2018
2023
2013-23
% Change
Total Bruce/Grey Counties
32,870
33,624
35,190
2,320
7.1%
When examining population and migration data from the more recent 2011 Census, looking at
detailed school enrolment data and projections and reviewing the residential development
forecasts for Bruce and Grey, it was decided that a conservative forecast was more consistent
and realistic to on-the-ground trends. School Board projections incorporate detailed and recent
enrolment data and the relationships between this data and overall population data provide
significant indicators of future pre and school aged populations. The trends and relationships
observed at this level were inconsistent with trends projected in the Ministry of Finance
projections. Furthermore, the residential development forecast for both Counties were reviewed
in great detail and compared to actual building permit issuance and the forecast was found to be
significantly overstated. In addition, the consultant had discussions with planning staff from both
Counties with regard to the existing forecasts and was told that the forecasts were optimistic
and that the Counties had not experienced the growth rates that were projected and that the
forecasts were being reviewed.
While the overall consultant projections indicate that future 0-18 populations are likely to remain
somewhat stable over the next 10 years, there are some areas in the jurisdiction that are
projected to grow at greater rate. When examining future residential development plans, there
are three municipalities in the jurisdiction where more than 10% of total future residential growth
is expected to occur; Kincardine, Saugeen Shores and Southgate. Those 3 municipalities also
have 0-18 populations higher than the jurisdiction average as well as 0-18 population ratios
compared to the total population that are also higher than the jurisdiction average. The map
below highlights projected residential development by municipality.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
26
Figure 6b: Residential Growth Hotspots by Municipality
6.3
Socio-economic Trends
Earlier in this report, detail was provided with regard to a variety of socio-economic trends, with
particular attention focused on family and child poverty rates. While much of this data is
pertinent to the organization and the market they serve, this section will deal primarily with
children living in poverty and lone parent families.
As mentioned earlier in this report, the prevalence of families and children living in poverty,
according to data from T1 Family File, is lower in Bruce and Grey when compared with the
Province of Ontario. In 2011, the rate of families living in poverty was approximately 8% to 9%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
27
in Bruce and Grey Counties; compared with 13% of families in Ontario. In addition, the rate of
children (aged 0 to 17) living in poverty was lower in the jurisdiction compared to the province as
a whole. In 2011, less than 17% of children were living in poverty in Bruce and Grey. This
compares to Ontario that had more than 19.4% of the children living in poverty for the same
year. Historically, the rate of low income has been higher amoung females, lone parents, recent
immigrants, people with disabilities, and First Nations people. Overall, the prevalence of low
income households and poverty across the country is declining.
According to the 2011 T1 Family File, the number of lone parent families is also lower in Bruce
and Grey when compared to the Province. In the jurisdiction, less than 13% of the tax filers
identified as being a lone parent family, compared with 15% in the Province. While, the number
of lone parent families has decreased since 2006 – the absolute number of lone parent families
living in poverty has remained relatively stable since 2006 at around 1,800. In Ontario, 176,330
lone parent families currently live in poverty which is a slight increase since 2006 (1%). Family
income levels and prevalence of lone parent families are impacted by a variety of factors, both
economic and societal, however based on the high level review of trends, there is no indication
that either of those factors are likely to change significantly in the next 5-10 years.
6.4
Service and Case Load Trends
The following section provides a summary of the service and case load trends. For the
purposes of this analysis, the total number of cases was examined between 2006 and 2013.
The number of cases refers to both protection and ongoing services for the organization. The
data indicates that the number of cases has declined by approximately 17% since 2006/07.
This relates closely to the declines experienced by the 0-18 population over the last decade
which saw a decline of 15% between 2001 and 2011. The 0-14 population experienced a more
significant decline of over 20%. Considering the relationship between the number of cases and
the service population, it is not surprising that the number of cases has decreased.
In addition to looking at the number of cases, it is also important to look at the number of cases
per the 0-18 year old population to determine if the share or participation rate is also changing.
In 2006 the Census identified a total of 34,885 0-18 year olds and the organization had a total of
691 cases for a participation rate of 1.98%. In 2011, there were a total of 32,010 0-18 year olds
and 633 cases for a similar participation rate of 1.98%. In fact, the decline in the 0-18
population of 8.2% between 2006 and 2011 is relatively the same as the decline in the number
of cases over the same time period (8.4%).
The service trends vary across the jurisdiction but not surprisingly, the highest number of cases
are typically related to areas that have the highest concentrations of children or proportionally
high numbers of children relative to the total population. When examining the case trends by
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
28
service area, the Walkerton and Owen Sound areas account for approximately 80% of all cases
while the Wiarton area represents the remaining 20%.
While the number of cases has been declining since 2006, the statistics related to Resource
and Adoption Trends have been increasing. These numbers refer to the kin in care, foster care
and adoption statistics. Since 2006/07, these resources have increased by 8%. Similar to the
service trends, when examining resources by service area Owen Sound and Walkerton account
for 75% of the resources while Wiarton makes up the remaining 25%. When comparing the
number of cases to the resources there are many areas that are consistent. However, it should
be noted that there are situations where the percentage of cases relative to the resources are
inconsistent and the organization should evaluate where and why these situation are occurring.
The needs analysis determined a list of primary factors that are relevant to the service delivery
of the organization and made inferences about how those needs are being met today and what
is expected to happen to the level of those needs in the future both on a jurisdiction-wide basis
as well as by service area and municipality. It is evident that there is a direct relationship
between the 0-18 service population and the number of cases.



The 0-18 population, according to consultant-prepared projections is expected to
continue dropping in the short to mid-term before stabilizing and then slightly increasing
in the longer term.
According to the T1 Family File, the incidence of families and their children living in
poverty, as well as lone parent families are lower than the Province and there is no
evidence in the trend analysis to indicate that they would increase significantly over the
next 5-10 years.
The number of cases has been declining since 2006/07.
Those three primary factors would suggest that service trends would continue to decline in the
short term and are likely to stabilize in the longer term. The organization is already in the
process of dealing with the projected short to mid-term declines and has a plan for a reduction
in staffing and budget forecasts as the next several years show a decrease in funding. On an
overall basis, the service trends are declining, consistent with the service population and other
factors analyzed. To get perspective on some of these primary indicators on a small area basis,
the consultant developed an indicator rating system by municipality, which can be found on the
following page.
The rating system focuses on 7 main indicators;
 Child Population (0-18);


% Of Child Population/Total Population;
Prevalence of Low Income Families;

Prevalence of Lone Parent Families;

# of Cases
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
29

Overall % of Total Cases

The % of Cases/Child Population
It should be noted, that for this rating system, the prevalence of low income families and lone
parent families was provided by the Census; which differs from the previous analysis included
that was derived from the T1 Family File. The organization collects specific data (i.e. numbers of
cases) that is then rolled up to municipal totals. While the T1 Family File provides an in-depth
look at poverty trends throughout the jurisdiction, the data is collected and aggregated using
postal codes and therefore does not necessarily roll up to municipal levels. Subsequently,
Census data was utilized for this section of the report (i.e. Table 6.4) in order to compare
between municipalities.
The ratings system chart highlights in yellow, the top five municipalities in any given category.
The municipalities are then ranked by those having the most categories in the top five.
According to this rating system, Owen Sound ranks first having 6 of the 7 categories in the top
five. Owen Sound is followed by Hanover, Saugeen Shores (including Saugeen 29 First
Nations reserve) and Brockton with 5 of the 7 categories in the top 5. Both South Bruce
Peninsula and Arran-Elderslie have 4 of the 7 categories in the top 5. The Neyaashiinigmiing
27 First Nations reserve has only 3 of the 7 categories in the top 5 but it should be noted that
data was not available for low income families. It is also important to note that the reserve had
the highest incidence of lone parent families at 29%, one of the highest ratios of children to adult
populations at 28.2% and the second highest number of cases per child population at 3%. The
remaining municipalities in the jurisdiction all had 2 or fewer categories in the top 5, with
Meaford, Huron-Kinloss and The Blue Mountains having no categories in the top 5.
If it is assumed that the current resources (staff, resource homes etc.) in place are sufficient to
meet the organization’s needs today and that the organization has already accounted for the
projected short to mid-term decreases in service population in their staffing and budget
forecasts. There is nothing in the indicators examined that would suggest that future needs are
increasing and require additional resources on a jurisdiction-wide basis, although there are
some indications that some areas may be under or over resourced relative to historical
caseloads.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
30
Table 6.4 BGCFS Indicator Rating System By Municipality
Child
Population (018)
% of Child
Population/
Total Pop.
Prevalence of
Low Income
Families*
Prevalence of
Lone
Parents**
# of Cases
(March 31st,
2014)
% of Cases
(March 31st,
2014)
% of
Cases/Child
Population
Owen Sound
4745
21.8%
6.8%
19.3%
116
22.4%
2.4%
Hanover
1495
20.9%
5.9%
14.3%
49
9.4%
3.3%
Saugeen Shores/Saugeen 29***
2485
19.9%
2.7%
10.9%
51
9.8%
2.1%
Brockton
2295
23.8%
6.0%
10.8%
44
8.5%
1.9%
South Bruce Peninsula
1545
18.4%
5.0%
10.8%
31
6.0%
2.0%
Arran-Elderslie
1675
24.9%
6.1%
10.2%
31
6.0%
1.9%
Neyaashiinigmiing 27
165
28.2%
na
29.0%
5
1.0%
3.0%
Kincardine
2285
20.4%
2.4%
9.4%
30
5.8%
1.3%
Chatsworth
1585
24.8%
3.6%
10.8%
19
3.7%
1.2%
West Grey
2790
22.9%
5.8%
9.6%
22
4.2%
0.8%
Huron-Kinloss
1540
23.7%
5.1%
7.5%
16
3.1%
1.0%
Southgate
2075
29.0%
3.7%
9.8%
27
5.2%
1.3%
Grey Highlands
2225
23.5%
4.0%
11.6%
28
5.4%
1.3%
South Bruce
1645
27.7%
4.2%
7.8%
9
1.7%
0.5%
Georgian Bluffs
2260
21.5%
2.7%
5.6%
6
1.2%
0.3%
Northern Bruce Peninsula
610
15.8%
4.9%
4.2%
9
1.7%
1.5%
Meaford
2190
20.0%
4.7%
10.4%
24
4.6%
1.1%
Blue Mountains
1210
17.7%
4.6%
7.7%
2
0.4%
0.2%
Municipality
*The low income (LIM-AT) measure from T1FF is not available for all municipalities; so for the purpose of this comparison table, the low income (LICO) measure from the 2006 Census was used.
**The prevalence of lone parent families from T1FF is not available for all municipalities; so for the purpose of this comparison table, the lone parent family ratio was derived from the 2006 Census.
***Saugeen Shores/Saugeen 29 data has been combined
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
31
7.
CONCLUSION
The main focus of this study is to provide Bruce Grey Child & Family Services with a
comprehensive outlook of the population and demographic characteristics that encompass their
jurisdiction. In particular, the prevalence of families and their children living in poverty was
explored in conjunction with associated demographic trends such as precarious employment
(not guaranteed or stable), health and well-being. An examination of the current demographic
and socio-economic trends provides the organization with a better understanding of the
population they currently serve and the potential needs of that population.
The impact of poverty on families (and their children) is wide-spread and complex in nature.
Often low income families require support in order to navigate these challenges. This study has
found that both Bruce and Grey counties have a lower prevalence of families living in poverty
compared to Ontario as a whole. Poverty prevalence rates in Ontario have remained relatively
constant at around 13% since 2006. Comparatively in Bruce and Grey, families living in poverty
has declined from 10% to 9% during this same period of time. The prevalence of low income
lone parent families however is on the rise throughout the jurisdiction. Between 2006 and 2011
the prevalence of low income lone parent families increased by 5% in Bruce and Grey; which
compares with a 1% decrease in Ontario during this same period of time.
This study not only examined the prevalence of families living in poverty, but more importantly
children (aged 0 to 17) that are living in low income households. Bruce Grey Child & Family
Services works in partnership with the community to help families keep children safe. Since
some families do not have children, it was important to examine child poverty prevalence rates
separately. Overall, the prevalence of children living in poverty has declined. In 2006
approximately 18% of children between the ages 0 to 17 were living in low income households;
this decreased to less than 17% by 2011. Comparatively in Ontario, the prevalence of children
living in poverty was approximately 19% in 2001 – which represents a 1% decrease since 2006
when the rate was 20%. Bruce and Grey also have a lower prevalence of children living in
poverty compared to the GTAH (Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton) which has ranged from
20% to 21% between 2006 and 2011. Compared to counties surrounding the jurisdiction
however (i.e. Perth, Huron, Wellington, Simcoe and Dufferin); Bruce and Grey have a child
poverty rate that is approximately 2% higher.
While the overall prevalence of child poverty is declining; approximately 4,800 children in Bruce
and Grey are currently living in low income households. The number of children living in poverty
varies geographically however; with discrepancies existing between neighbouring communities.
Currently, Dundalk, Wiarton, Southampton, Teeswater and Owen Sound have each
experienced an increase in the prevalence of child poverty since 2006; while the remaining
municipalities/communities have remained stable or in decline during this same period of time.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report
32
In addition, Owen Sound, Wiarton and Hanover have the largest number of children living in
poverty – representing more than 2,000 children combined or 43% of the total.
The rise of precarious employment (not stable or guaranteed) in recent years has also
compounded the prevalence of low income households. Many families are struggling with the
challenge of raising children, working full time and still having the burden of living in poverty.
Some communities with higher rates of child or family poverty also have relatively high numbers
of unemployed populations.
In addition, specific populations have a higher risk of poverty than others – with Canadian
aboriginal children more than 2 and half times more likely to grow up in poverty than nonaboriginal children. In the jurisdiction, there are two First Nation communities which are both
located in the Northwest portion of Bruce County. The total population of both of these
communities combined is less than 1,500 – however the child population represents more than
30% of the total population.
This study provided an in-depth view of local poverty trends throughout the organization’s
jurisdiction. This data can be helpful in ensuring that services are allocated appropriately and
effectively throughout the area. The organization’s jurisdiction is one that has experienced
significant declines in the child population over the last decade and while the number of cases
have declined, so has the organization’s funding. While families living in poverty in Bruce and
Grey Counties have decreased slightly over the last decade, the number of low income lone
parent families have been on the rise. Additionally, while the poverty rates are lower in Bruce
and Grey Counties when compared with the Province, they are higher than many of its
surrounding communities and vary greatly across the jurisdiction. This study has attempted to
highlight areas that may have higher needs so that the organization can focus its resources and
funding to be used in the most efficient manner.
As mentioned above, the data and analysis in this report is intended to help focus future
resources for the organization. However, the information contained in this report is also
intended to raise awareness of the issues facing Bruce and Grey Counties particularly with
regard to poverty and more specifically families and their children living in poverty. This report
provides data and information that is relevant to organizations across the jurisdiction; as well as
all levels of government and the community at large. Subsequently this study can help facilitate
a larger discussion of these important issues.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Poverty Report